So, this year's rez is "The United States should substantially reform their trade policies with one or more of the following countries: South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan". I'm in Paradigm, and this is my first year. I'm going to do Team Policy debate, and my homework is to write a topicality argument against the definition of china: "a fine white or translucent vitrified ceramic material" as an example. I'm not sure if I understood how to write a topicality completely, and I wanted to make sure that mine was... like... not... weird. Or something. Just did I do it right?

Judge, this year's resolution is that the United States should substantially reform it's trade agreements with one or more of the following countries: South Korea, Taiwan, China, Japan. Now the affirmative team has defined China as a material, and we do not agree with that definition. We, as the negative team believe the the resolution intended China to be a specific communist nation in East-Asia. We believe that our definition was what the resolution intended. Now into our reasoning: for one thing, if you ask an average person what they think China is, that will probably be their answer, and we think that the resolution would specify the material because of that, if the affirmative teams definition is what the resolution meant. And if that's not enough, China's also capitalized in the resolution, which would mean it's not a material. It's surrounded by countries, so in context, it only makes sense, and the resolution even says: “...reform trade agreements with one or more of the following countries”. The affirmative teams definition clearly does not fit into the resolution at all. So here we go, researching different countries and their trade agreements, and they're over researching our trade agreements with materials, we're clearly not going to have a very educated debate here. And, that's all I have, thank you.

Great start! It's definitely not weird. I like your readable, conversational style. There are a few changes I'd recommend to make it even better:

1. Cut the part about "ask an average person" -- the average answer will depend on the context, for example if you ask "What is china?" while staring pointedly at a teacup. This section is just a distraction. Instead stress both the capitalization and the context, especially that it's described as "one.. of the following countries."

2. Frankly, your argument is airtight and it's obviously intended to be a country. But an important part of a good argument that's most often overlooked is the impact. You have one -- "we won't have a very educational debate" -- but you kind of rush over it and don't stress it. Spend a little more time elaborating on why we want to have an educational debate and how bad it would be if we don't (wasting time, etc), and then directly relate it to the judge voting for you, because your definition provides the educational debate.

3. Finally, never end with "and that's all I have to say" if you can help it -- it weakens the point of your argument and really isn't necessary. End with a strong impact like "Vote for me so we can have an educational debate" and then just move on to introduce your next point.

Since you posted over a week ago, you might have turned your homework in already, but I thought I'd give my ideas anyway because they can help you fine-tune other arguments as well.

Great start! It's definitely not weird. I like your readable, conversational style. There are a few changes I'd recommend to make it even better:

1. Cut the part about "ask an average person" -- the average answer will depend on the context, for example if you ask "What is china?" while staring pointedly at a teacup. This section is just a distraction. Instead stress both the capitalization and the context, especially that it's described as "one.. of the following countries."

2. Frankly, your argument is airtight and it's obviously intended to be a country. But an important part of a good argument that's most often overlooked is the impact. You have one -- "we won't have a very educational debate" -- but you kind of rush over it and don't stress it. Spend a little more time elaborating on why we want to have an educational debate and how bad it would be if we don't (wasting time, etc), and then directly relate it to the judge voting for you, because your definition provides the educational debate.

3. Finally, never end with "and that's all I have to say" if you can help it -- it weakens the point of your argument and really isn't necessary. End with a strong impact like "Vote for me so we can have an educational debate" and then just move on to introduce your next point.

Since you posted over a week ago, you might have turned your homework in already, but I thought I'd give my ideas anyway because they can help you fine-tune other arguments as well.

Your standards are "what the people writing the resolution meant" and your violations are the points about capitalization and context, because those show the material china does not meet the standard of "intended by the writers of the resolution".

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum